TheSamba.com :: View topic

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:01 pm

I pulled apart the rear brakes on my '63 and I'm pretty sure the e-brake arms are on the wrong side of the shoe?

My car:

Shop manual:

The shop manual shows the e-brake arm on the OUTSIDE of the brake shoe, not the inside. Parts book is hard to tell but it looks that way too.
The clip for the top spring is backward too.

Just wanted some confirmation before I reverse everything.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:18 pm

I have my drums/hubs off right now and just looked at how mine are setup...mine are the same as the bentley manual

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:39 pm

Thanks.

You have a '65, correct? I don't think there is a difference but just wanted the full info in here.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:50 pm

It's actually 4 lug stuff but the ebrake arm and cable look exactly the same.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:27 pm

I think you have the wrong brake shoes. I'm almost positive that those are correct for the early cars on the front only. They ebrake set up should have the lever on the front of the shoe.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:39 pm

I think the PO just switched the left and right sides :roll:

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:39 pm

Should be like the shop manual, but likely not causing any harm.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:47 pm

Is there any difference running two little springs on the bottom instead of one large one? I remember when I set mine up the spring kit had two small ones that hooked to the backing plate.

The manual also shows the top spring clip facing the other way; not sure if it makes any difference.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:52 pm

Mark's '64 has 2 small springs hooked to the backplate. Also, e-brake arm on the front of the shoe like the manual.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:55 pm

Those don't look like Type 3 shoes to me, but as long as they work I'm sure there's no problem. The e-brake lever should definitely be on the outside.

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:44 pm

Thanks for all the input.

I had not noticed the shoes don't match the shop book either but they are 45mm wide (correct) and they were working fine so I think I am ok.

But... the shoes are damaged so if anyone has any "correct" ones, even cores, I would get the right ones redone/installed.
Or if anyone knows the universal number for the rear brake shoes, please post it.
For instance, the front shoes are number 10139

As someone said above, it looks like they swapped left & right as they would be correct otherwise. To swap side to side was my plan. ;)

They also installed the wrong wheel cylinders, they are 65-era 23.8mm ones instead of the correct 63 25.4mm ones - probably all they could find. It seemed to drive fine though, not that I have driven it much, haha, but if I can find some 25.4mm ones I will swap them out. (Hint, hint, part # 361611069B)

Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:21 am

Everett, theres one of those cylinders on ebay right now

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VW-type-3-variant-rear-wheel-cylinder-1963-361-611-069B-/130399583341

Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:04 am

Thanks, I was watching that, waiting to see if I could find 2 first.

Now that you posted it, I bought it. ;)

A Type 3 friend contacting me with one as well so thanks to him too.

Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:21 pm

ibjack wrote: I think you have the wrong brake shoes. I'm almost positive that those are correct for the early cars on the front only. They ebrake set up should have the lever on the front of the shoe.
Hey Jack,
If you were referring to the shape of the shoes?
They match what is in my parts book for 63-down and a couple other brake shoes sources I found later.

64-65 have the shape as seen in my shop book image above.

Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:13 am

EverettB wrote: ibjack wrote: I think you have the wrong brake shoes. I'm almost positive that those are correct for the early cars on the front only. They ebrake set up should have the lever on the front of the shoe.
Hey Jack,
If you were referring to the shape of the shoes?
They match what is in my parts book for 63-down and a couple other brake shoes sources I found later.

64-65 have the shape as seen in my shop book image above.

My experience has been that the batwing sytle were for the fronts on the earlies and since squarebacks had larger shoes thay were more of the "regular "style. I have never owned an early square but have been able to work on a few early cars. Here's what I'm used to seeing

Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:36 am

Those are the correct shoes Jack-Ev. The early ones have that universal shoe. In the pic above those back ones are just later types-that Im pretty sure you can use up front as well. Its the width as Ev said. 45mm is for the early rear.

Dont toss those early shoes Ev. ISP as well as other shops re-shoe them. Super Beetles use those later rear T3 shoes for the fronts.

Oh and the E brake arm should be on the outside.

See the pic below-the shoe has the groove in it for the E brake arm. Making it univeral-F to R.

My 63 Ev

Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:46 am

Thanks for the additional input and photos.

Yes, once I figured out they were correct I am getting them re-shoed locally.

Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:41 pm

EverettB wrote:

They also installed the wrong wheel cylinders, they are 65-era 23.8mm ones instead of the correct 63 25.4mm ones - probably all they could find. It seemed to drive fine though, not that I have driven it much, haha, but if I can find some 25.4mm ones I will swap them out. (Hint, hint, part # 361611069B)
Here's a post you made back in 2007, Everett, showing the complete range of front and rear Type 3 wheel cylinders.
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=266697

The only VW I have owned or worked on is a '63 Notchback with an 83000 chassis number. I wrote down in a repair manual some 30 years ago that I replaced my rears with 113 611 057B. Now I find out from your 2007 post that I should be using 311 611 067. Since both part numbers have a 22.2 mm bore I'm not going to sweat it.

However, I did switch to 50 mm shoes way back when and have not had any problems with the brakes (except for when I took steep Hwy 18 north from Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mts. to the desert below. But that's another story). I suppose I should switch to the later cylinders since the tab of the shoe that fits into cylinder slot is 2.5 mm farther away from the backing plate on 50 mm shoes compared with 45 mm shoes. This raises the question: when, if ever, did the Type 3 switch to 50 mm shoes?

Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:52 pm

Randall wrote: EverettB wrote:

They also installed the wrong wheel cylinders, they are 65-era 23.8mm ones instead of the correct 63 25.4mm ones - probably all they could find. It seemed to drive fine though, not that I have driven it much, haha, but if I can find some 25.4mm ones I will swap them out. (Hint, hint, part # 361611069B)
Here's a post you made back in 2007, Everett, showing the complete range of front and rear Type 3 wheel cylinders.
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=266697

The only VW I have owned or worked on is a '63 Notchback with an 83000 chassis number. I wrote down in a repair manual some 30 years ago that I replaced my rears with 113 611 057B. Now I find out from your 2007 post that I should be using 311 611 067. Since both part numbers have a 22.2 mm bore I'm not going to sweat it.

However, I did switch to 50 mm shoes way back when and have not had any problems with the brakes (except for when I took steep Hwy 18 north from Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mts. to the desert below. But that's another story). I suppose I should switch to the later cylinders since the tab of the shoe that fits into cylinder slot is 2.5 mm farther away from the backing plate on 50 mm shoes compared with 45 mm shoes. This raises the question: when, if ever, did the Type 3 switch to 50 mm shoes?

They changed in 64, and stayed that size until the end of production.

Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:57 pm

Randall wrote: The only VW I have owned or worked on is a '63 Notchback with an 83000 chassis number. I wrote down in a repair manual some 30 years ago that I replaced my rears with 113 611 057B. Now I find out from your 2007 post that I should be using 311 611 067. Since both part numbers have a 22.2 mm bore I'm not going to sweat it.

Yes, I'm not sure if it matters. I found some photos online and it also looks like the Bug bleeder valve is on the opposite side of the metal line connection on the cylinder. I'm not sure if there is a difference otherwise.